About

Why are books filled with dolphins that don't exist?

While browsing through public domain images shared by the Biodiversity Heritage Library on Flickr, I came across this dolphin -

 

 

"Elliot's Dolphin". Which, as far as I knew, does not exist.

When I started looking for more nonexistent dolphins in old books, I ended up finding several, and then a dozen. Turns out, hundreds of the unique individual cetacean species named in books throughout history no longer exist. In cetologist Tom Jefferson's 2021 paper Nomenclature of the dolphins, porpoises, and small whales: a review and guide to the early taxonomic literature, he sources and clarifies all the scientific names applied to delphinoid species post-Linnaeus. Of the total 358 delphinoid species named, only 50 are currently considered valid. And that's just delphinoids, never mind Baleen and Sperm Whales.

 

A footnote in A Book Of Whales (1900) alluding to Delphinus coronatus, a "paper whale" species described in 1812

 I have not found a singular solid answer regarding why, but I think multiples factors (especially the fact that cetaceans themselves are hard to observe from a distance) have contributed to the sheer amount of seemingly made-up species.

Many of these misbegotten species are what scientists call synonyms - that is, different people observed the same species and separately gave it a different name. Most of these cases have been cleared up in recent decades (the first recorded name for a species takes priority), but for a surprising amount of cetaceans, it isn't clear what living species is being described in these journal entries. These cases are referred to as nomen dubium, and additionally sometimes incercae sedis or species inquirenda.

Throughout the 19th century, information about the biology of the world's oceans were limited. The few books and illustrations made about cetaceans were copied verbatim with the copiers having no way of verifying what the original seafarers saw, so inaccurate information and nonexistent dolphins would often persist through books for several decades.

What is a paper whale?

In an obliquely similar vein as paper towns and paper sons, these are whale species that only exist on paper. And while cetaceans are far from the only animal group to haveentries in the nomen dubium realm, their ecology makes them uniquely susceptible to it. My loose definition of a paper whale can include the following:

•          A species whose physical description differs significantly from any known cetacean species.

•         An anomalous individual which is treated as a unique species by its describer, i.e. a Sperm Whale with a tall dorsal fin.

•         A cetacean treated as a unique species on account of it being sighted far from its usual range, i.e. a Dusky Dolphin in Scandinavia.

      Intrigued by this phenomena, I decided to start a series of drawings where I'd read the original descriptions of these bygone cetaceans and draw them based on these descriptions, essentially taking the original describers on their word and treating their whales as true, unique animals. Many of these species have not been drawn since the 19th century and earlier, and some have not been drawn at all. My main focus is species that do not closely resemble any currently known species, so I'll likely skip obvious synonyms.

This blog will mainly serve as my own personal catalogue of these species as I draw them. It also gives me space to cite my sources and explain the creative decisions I considered while making the drawings. I'm far from an expert in cetacean art, so I apologize for any wonky or vague anatomy - I'm hoping this series will also encourage me to improve my skills.

 

FAQ

Q: This this a speculative evolution project?

A: No, I did not make up any of these species myself. All my drawings are based on species descriptions that were earnestly put forward by scientists and other observers in the past.

 

Q: Are these species included in books as copyright traps, like paper towns and trap streets?

A: I’ve seen no indication that any of the species I’ve come across so far were deliberately fabricated as copyright traps, and most have been taken seriously and cited in later publications, notably in the catalogues Hershkovitz 1966 and Jefferson 2021. Copyright traps are mostly a feature of reference works like dictionaries and atlases, not so much travelogues.

 

Q: Are these whales cryptids?

A: Short answer: It depends on your definition of "cryptid". Long answer: I do not consider paper whales to be cryptids. My definition of "cryptid" is based heavily on the intent of the original describer, not necessarily on the nature of the animal. While many cryptids were born out of tall tales told by the public which occasionally made it to newspapers, scientists and naturalists of the past usually approached new species with a more critical eye and published their findings in books specific to their field. Their intent, however flawed, was to expand our knowledge of the natural world, not to fearmonger or create a spectacle. Even non-scientists like Mörzer Bruyns understood the importance of sticking to scientific conventions if you wanted your observations to be taken seriously. I find these cases interesting specifically because most of them come from established scientists. I consider most paper whales "dubious species" because the intent to have them legitimized was there.

Q: How come so many non-existent whales.. exist?

A: Whales and dolphins are hard to recognize at sea at the best of times, leading to inaccurate illustrations and descriptions. I suspect this is the main reason for so many seemingly unique species being described. We still have this issue today with enigmatic Beaked Whale species - Google "Andrew's Beaked Whale" on Google images and you will see that we still don't have a consensus on what they look like in life. Additionally, dolphins are hard to capture, leading to a lack of holotype specimens to accompany historic species descriptions.

Quoy and Gaimard's "Cross-Bearing Dolphin" (still overlay) compared to the limited view of swimming Hourglass Dolphins that the naturalists likely would have had from their ship. Less-than-ideal observation conditions like this were likely the cause of many unusual whale descriptions.

 

Genetically, cetaceans are also remarkably compatible between species, and wild hybrids are surprisingly common. Individuals born with unique color mutations have also been regularly observed. I don’t think all of these one-off sightings can be blamed on hybrids and mutations, but it’s certainly another possibility.